Reviewing the Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook (SIWO) to Increase Resilience in Coastal Alaska

Reviewing the Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook (SIWO) to Increase Resilience in Coastal Alaska © Clarence Irrigoo, Jr. Gambell, AK Recommended citation: Hendricks, A., N. Kettle, L. Sheffield Guy, O. Lee, V. Metcalf, and D. Holen, 2023. Reviewing the Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook to Increase Resilience in Coastal Alaska. International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Fairbanks, Alaska. 1 1. Introduction. The Arctic is undergoing rapid environmental and socio-economic changes (Markon et al. 2018). For Arctic sea-ice, these changes include perennial sea-ice loss and declines in the duration of seasonal sea-ice presence (Kinnard et al. 2008). These changes have resulted in shifting distributions of walrus hunting locations in the Bering Sea and changes to traditional ways of understanding weather and ice conditions, which have become less reliable over time (Krupnik and Jolly 2002; Pungowiyi 2000; Metcalf and Robards 2008; Fidel et al. 2014; Walsh et al. 2016). Alaska Native communities have called for efforts to enhance food security by increasing communication networks among scientists, decision makers, and Indigenous Knowledge holders (ICC 2015). Additionally, several workshops, climate adaptation plans, and trainings in the Bering Strait region have identified a high level of interest in reducing risks for subsistence activities, understanding sea-ice conditions, and supporting knowledge sharing among rural communities (Kettle et al. 2017; Pletnikoff et al. 2017). Becoming informed about weatherand climate-related information resources across the Arctic is enhanced by the availability of trusted information, including Indigenous Knowledge and science. Subsistence hunters must consider sea-ice conditions, weather forecasts, walrus accessibility, and the other economic costs. However, there are several challenges in acquiring and using such information in rural Alaska, including limited or unreliable internet (Hudson et al. 2012). There is an increasing need to understand how information resources that bring together Indigenous Knowledge and science can be designed to support coastal resilience. 1.1 Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook The Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook (SIWO, Figure 1) is an information resource designed to address needs of hunters in Alaskan Indigenous communities and others interested in sea-ice and walruses by providing information about sea-ice, weather, and walruses in the Bering Strait region (ARCUS 2022a). Below, we trace the origins of the SIWO, the process of how the weekly SIWO is produced, information provided in the weekly outlooks, and key partnerships and collaborators. The SIWO emerged as a pilot project from the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2009, which was a coordinated effort aimed at strengthening connections with the Indigenous peoples and establishing observational networks (IPY 2012). The SIWO emerged from two IPY projects that focused on documenting Indigenous Knowledge and use of sea-ice (Krupnik et al. 2010) and developing a community sea-ice observation network among coastal communities (Eicken et al. 2014). The SIWO was first formally discussed among Bering Strait community representatives in January 2010 at a meeting supported by the Eskimo Walrus Commission (EWC) in Nome, Alaska (IPY 2012). The first SIWO outlook was published in April 2010. The SIWO is managed by the Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. (ARCUS, arcus.org), a boundary organization that “facilitates cross-boundary Arctic knowledge, research, communication, and education in the US, and with partners across the globe” (ARCUS 2022b). The SIWO is supported by multiple individuals and organizations. This includes several partner organizations that have provided significant and sustained contributions since SIWO’s inception. ARCUS’s SIWO partner organizations include the EWC, National Weather Service (NWS), and University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) International Arctic Research Center (IARC). It also includes local community observers who are considered equal partners. In spring 2022, Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS) and Axiom Data-Science began providing sustained support 2 for the SIWO via additional funding and forecast information. Funding for SIWO is provided by the National Science Foundation through a cooperative agreement with ARCUS (PLR-1928794). Figure 1: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook (SIWO) organizational design. The SIWO provides weekly outlooks during the spring walrus hunting season, typically between mid-March and mid-June, when sea-ice retreats through the Bering Strait and acts as a platform for migrating walruses. The weekly SIWO includes local observations, scientific forecasts, satellite imagery, and opportunistic information. Local observations related to sea-ice, weather, and walruses are provided via pictures and written narratives by observers from seven Bering Strait coastal communities who are active or former walrus hunters (Figure 2). Individual local observer reports are sent to the SIWO project manager at ARCUS and partner coordinator at UAF/IARC. NWS information is posted to the NWS SIWO webpage (NWS 2019) and retrieved by the SIWO project manager for inclusion in the outlook each week. The NWS provides a suite of information products, including maps of sea-ice age, maps of sea-ice concentration, forecast maps of sea-ice edge for the next five days, high-resolution satellite 3 images of the Bering Strait, Wales to Shishmaref, and St. Lawrence Island regions, temperature trends for the five to seven days, and wind forecasts for the next five to seven days. Detailed forecasts are made available for each of the SIWO communities. Recently, new partners AOOS and Axiom Data-Science began providing sea-ice movement forecasts for the SIWO region. Additional opportunistic sources of information, such as annotated satellite imagery or photos from volunteers, are sought out and included by the SIWO project manager and partner coordinator when available. The SIWO project manager at ARCUS compiles these observations and forecasts into the weekly outlook, which is published at noon on Fridays. Weekly outlooks are publicly accessible on the SIWO Facebook page (Facebook 2022a) and SIWO webpage on the ARCUS website (ARCUS 2022a) and a weekly email is sent to a list of subscribers. The NWS SIWO webpage is updated twice daily (NWS 2019). The first outlook was published in April 2010. Figure 2: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook (SIWO) observer communities in the northern Bering Sea and southern Chukchi Sea regions in Alaska (n=7). SIWO partnering organizations collaborate with an informal and voluntary advisory team that provides broader context and ensures that the evolving needs of local observers and users are met. The advisory team does not have planning authority nor greater influence than the SIWO local observers and partners. The informal advisory team consists of several individuals who have been involved in varying capacities and involvement since 2010. The advisory team typically joins two annual meetings to provide guidance and insight. A pre-season meeting in February or March reviews the state of the sea-ice and helps to establish the start date for SIWO. A post-season meeting aims to recap the hunting season, plan for the following season, and provide an opportunity for relationship building among local observers and science partners. 4 Although there appears to be a high level of interest in the SIWO, more detailed feedback is needed to enhance the capacity of the SIWO to support community resilience. 1.2 Assessment Goals and Purpose Assessing the SIWO provides an opportunity to support coastal resilience in Alaska in several manners. First, it provides a preliminary set of recommendations to the SIWO manager and partners on how the SIWO can be improved to support societal needs. Second, it contributes to a broader understanding of how processes for information sharing can be supported among local and Indigenous Knowledge holders, scientists, and climate communicators to develop more usable science across the Alaskan Arctic. Third, it explores how local observations, which are of disproportionate importance in the Arctic, can support NWS monitoring systems. The primary objectives of this project are to evaluate the SIWO to identify ways to improve its usability and optimize the impact of the SIWO based on a set of stakeholder-generated recommendations. 2. Summary of Review Methods. The SIWO is reviewed based on a set of 27 indicators (Table 1), developed from literature on evaluation and decision support. This includes five types of indicators commonly used in evaluations: inputs, processes, outcomes, outputs, and contextual factors (e.g., Kettle 2019; Wall et al. 2017). Inputs focus on human, social, natural, and financial capacities, including resource allocation, involvement across the science-practice boundary, leadership, and skill sets. Processes refer to actions taken to meet program goals, such as the frequency and level of engagement and inclusion of individuals on both sides of the sciencepractice boundary. Outputs refer to deliverables other than the weekly SIWO. Outcomes are more conceptual and refer to achieving project goals and perceived credibility, legitimacy, and relevance. Contextual factors refer to external forces that impact the SIWO and partners’ capacity to provide information. Our approach to reviewing the SIWO consists of three steps discussed below: document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and a web-based questionnaire. Table 1: Framework to evaluate the effectiveness of information resources that bring together Indigenous Knowledge and science. I = Inputs, P = Processes; OP = Outputs; OC = Outcomes, CF = Contextual Factors. Component Indicators Key References Inputs I.1: Necessary scientific expertise Cash et al. 2002; Meadow et al. 2016 I.2: Necessary Indigenous Knowledge Cash et al. 2002; Kettle 2019; Meadow et al. 2016 I.3: Program champion(s) and leadership McNie 2013 I.4: Equitable commitment of time, services, funds Elam Yua et al. 2021 I.5: Articulated need for information resource McNie 2013; Vaughan and Dessai 2014; Vincent et al. 2018; NRC 2009 I.6: Pre-existing relationships Meadow et al. 2016 I.7: Motivations for collaborating Wall et al. 2017; Oh and Rich 1996 I.8: Attitude towards collaboration with Indigenous communities and individuals Kalafatis et al. 2019 I.9: Institutional stability NRC 2009 I.10: Boundary spanners and communicators Buizer et al. 2012; Cash et al. 2003, 2006; Meadow et al. 2015, 2016 5 Processes P.1: Ongoing and iterative communication and engagement McNie 2013; Vaughan and Dessai 2014; Vincent et al. 2018; Cochran et al. 2013; NRC 2009; Dilling and Lemos 2011; Lemos et al. 2012 P.2: Design for learning Gerlak et al. 2018; Meadow et al. 2016; Vincent et al. 2018 P.3: Tailoring of information Gerlak et al. 2018; McNie 2013; Vaughan and Dessai 2014; Vincent et al. 2018 P.4: Increasing accessibility of information Vaughan and Dessai 2014; NRC 1999; Dilling and Lemos 2011 P.5: Support for equitable opportunities to participate Cash et al. 2002; Meadow et al. 2016; Vincent et al. 2018 P.6: Transparent decision processes Gerlak et al. 2018; Vaughan and Dessai 2014 Outputs OP.1: Additional documents and reports Wall et al. 2017 Outcomes OC.1: Information perceived as salient Cash et al. 2002; Gerlak et al. 2018; McNie 2013; Riley 2021 OC.2: Information perceived as credible Cash et al. 2002; Gerlak et al. 2018; McNie 2013 OC.3: Information perceived as accessible Gerlak et al. 2018 OC.4: Process perceived as legitimate Cash et al. 2003; McNie 2013; Cochran et al. 2013 OC.5: Achievement of project goals Wall et al. 2017 OC.6: Partner interest in continued collaboration Wall et al. 2017 OC.7: Unexpected outcomes Kettle 2019 Contextual Factors CF.1: Budget constraints of partners (travel, time, etc.) Wall et al. 2017 CF.2: Personnel turnover Kettle 2019; Wall et al. 2017 CF.3: Technological and connectivity capacities Wall et al. 2017 2.1 Document Analysis A web-based search was used to identify SIWO-related documents and websites using combinations of the following keywords: sea ice for walrus outlook, Alaska, SIWO, SIPN2, ELOKA, SIZONet, and names of current advisory team members. The initial list of 46 documents was sent to the evaluation project partners for review, which resulted in an additional 25 documents, for a total of 71 documents. Content analysis was conducted to understand context, identify potential interviewees, inform the development of the interview protocol, and identify additional SIWO outputs from the SIWO (Appendix A). 2.2 Semi-structured Interviews Interviews (n=13; 65% response rate) were conducted over the telephone and internet between February 2021 and March 2022. Potential interviewees were identified from the document analysis and feedback from the evaluation project review team. Participants were contacted via diverse modes of communication, including e-mail, Facebook Messenger, and text messaging due to telecommunication challenges in rural Alaska (Hudson et al. 2012). 6 Interviewees included the SIWO project manager, partner coordinator, three local observers, two NWS forecasters, five informal advisory team members, and one contributor of opportunistic information. Local observers were paid $150 for their time, knowledge, and expertise (Raymond-Yakoubian et al. 2014). Interviews lasted 45–90 minutes, and covered topics relating to their perceptions of engagement with the SIWO, including motivations for engaging with the SIWO, uses of the SIWO, information content preferences, feedback on how the SIWO is produced, recommendations to enhance usability, and perceptions of salience, credibility, and legitimacy. Interview recordings were transcribed and coded for themes relating to the evaluation indicators (Table 1). 2.3 Web-based Questionnaire A questionnaire was implemented between March and April 2022 to obtain additional feedback from SIWO users. Survey questions focused on user backgrounds, use of the SIWO, preferences for information types, missing information, preferences for availability and access, and communication of information across user groups. Participants were recruited via announcements on the SIWO Facebook (~1000 profiles) and ARCUS SIWO webpage, the SIWO mailing list (n=46), and emails to Tribal offices (n=21). Participants had the opportunity to win one of five $50 Visa gift cards. The questionnaire received 35 responses (3.5% response rate). In addition to telecommunication challenges, the low response rate may be related to Facebook account users being under 18 years old, individuals who follow the Facebook SIWO page but have limited engagement, and limited participant availability when the survey was disseminated. Respondent roles included walrus hunters (n=14), Bering Strait residents (n=15), scientists (n=15), and a natural resource manager (n=1); several participants identified as having multiple roles (29%). Affiliations included local or tribal government (43%), federal government (40%), state government (37%), Alaska Native corporations (23%), non-profit organizations (17%), universities (17%), and local community businesses (15%). Nine participants provided the name of their community in the Bering Strait region. This included three communities who have SIWO observers and two communities who do not currently have a SIWO observer. 3. SIWO Review Findings. Analysis of documents, interview transcripts, and questionnaire responses provided insights into several indicators of production, access, use, and perceptions of usability for the SIWO. The following subsections outline the input, process, output, outcome, and contextual factor indicators for the SIWO (Table 1). For a detailed assessment of the questionnaire findings, see Hendricks et al. 2022. 3.1 Inputs The SIWO is supported by several human, financial, and social capacities. The SIWO project manager, partner coordinator, local observers, and informal advisory team members hold significant experience and expertise in Indigenous Knowledge and science that provide capacity for providing information on weather and sea-ice conditions relevant to walrus hunting and safe travel (I.1-2). Local observers, many of whom are walrus hunters from Bering Strait coastal communities, maintain close connections to the land and waters and are experts at observing the environment. Staff from the NWS Alaska Sea Ice Program (ASIP) hold extensive experience in sea-ice forecasting and producing daily sea-ice analysis and monthly sea-ice outlooks in Alaska (Heim and Schreck 2016). Forecasters for the SIWO at the Fairbanks Weather Forecasting Office have expertise in weather forecasting, as well as coastal and river hydrology and flooding, and experience working with partners to deliver weather information (Buzard et al. 2021). At the 7 same time, NWS forecasters and local observers suggested that increasing the capacity of local observers to provide scientific observations could provide accurate local information on variables such as wind speed and direction. SIWO advisory team members are experts in coastal sea-ice dynamics and hazards (Eicken and Mahoney 2015), marine mammals (Sheffield and Grebmeier 2009), cultural anthropology (Krupnik 2019), and Indigenous participation in research and engagement in the Bering Strait (Metcalf and Robards 2008). Additional capacity for scientific forecasting, climate insights, and science communication (I.10) is provided by a climate specialist at the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP), who is also a retired forecaster for the NWS Fairbanks and Nome Weather Forecasting Offices. The ACCAP climate specialist maintains a long-standing social media page (Facebook 2022b) to share accessible regional weather and climate information and is a trusted source of information in western Alaska (Thoman et al. 2020). Additional capacity for insight into Alaska Native culture and values is provided by a local advocate and leader in the walrus hunting community who spans a boundary with science and policy (Metcalf and Robards 2008) (I.10). A few advisory team members remarked on this boundary spanner’s advocatory voice during periods of limited funding for the SIWO, as well as their important perspectives on how SIWO stipends contribute to the local economies and wellbeing. All SIWO advisory team members have worked or lived in the Bering Strait and are aware of the myriad environmental concerns of local observers and regional community residents. One advisory team member commented on their desire to see more invited to participate as local observers for the SIWO, and one local observer hopes to see more youth involvement invited to the SIWO, as youth are important as future leaders and hunters. Strong leadership with a personal touch is a driving force for sustainability of local observer participation in the SIWO (I.3). Many interviewees (n=5) commented on the SIWO project manager’s respectful approach to managing the SIWO as highly beneficial for supporting engagement and feedback from local observers: “[they do] a really good job of letting there be space to ask one of the observers a question or something. [They] always seem very calm and patient and respectful” (Interview 04). Guidance for what local SIWO observers should include in their weekly observations are provided on the SIWO webpage (arcus.org/siwo/submit). Local observer stipends aim to compensate and recognize the time, expertise, and expenses for gathering, preparing, and submitting weekly reports (I.4). Beginning in 2017, local observers began receiving $40 weekly stipends, which led to more frequent and reliable observations. However, most of the local observers, members of the advisory team, and project manager do not view the $40 stipend as sufficient, as observers routinely provide self-services like internet and fuel to support their weekly observations, which can routinely take longer than an hour to prepare. One local observer described the time commitment as follows: “I do these observations and it doesn't take an hour and it doesn't take two hours. Sometimes it'll take three hours. On a really bad day, it'll take four hours and so time is money” (Interview 13). Local observers also commented that they would be able to provide more detailed and frequent observations with additional funding. An advisory team member and local observer both suggested that nearly doubling the stipend may provide a more equitable level of compensation. The need for developing a platform to support sharing of Indigenous observations and science was articulated after the extremely low sea-ice years of 2007 and 2008 (Eicken et al. 2014) (I.5). Local observers working with scientists identified key challenges that emerged with respect to accessing marine mammals. The emergent challenge focused on navigating less 8 predictable and more dangerous sea-ice. Conversations between scientists and the EWC highlighted impacts of changing conditions at local scales and prompted a reframing of an emerging pan-Arctic seasonal outlook to focus on providing helpful and useful information for Bering Strait communities, which eventually became the SIWO. Pre-existing relationships among local observers, the SIWO project manager and partner coordinator, and Bering Strait residents served key functions in the development and usability of the SIWO (I.6). Indeed, the SIWO was intentionally designed to leverage existing relationships in order to sustain relationships and increase trust, which are key for recruiting local observers in Alaska Native communities. Most of the SIWO interviewees, including the SIWO project manager, partner coordinator, advisory team members, and NWS forecasters, have worked extensively and built relationships with local observers and residents in the Bering Strait region. Further, time spent in coastal communities facilitated the development of personal connections with Alaska Native hunters, which was highlighted by the SIWO project manager, partner coordinator, and advisory team members as important for promoting open feedback on the effectiveness of the SIWO. Additionally, the SIWO project manager credits their time spent living on St. Lawrence Island as critical in providing insights into managing the SIWO and developing relationships with local observers and partners. For example, this experience provided insights into learning about key issues on information access and use for Bering Strait communities. It also enabled the SIWO manager to reach out to friends in the Bering Strait for input on effectively managing the SIWO to better serve communities. Motivations for supporting the SIWO varied across individuals and groups (I.7). Local observers are motivated to share observations with hunters and community members to support safe travel. One local observer remarked that sharing observations with the SIWO is where they can make a difference: The sea-ice breakup, the movement, it's affecting a lot of us. That's where I come into play. That's where I feel that I can make a difference is that I can tell you that this is happening in [my community] (Interview 13). Similarly, NWS staff participation is motivated by a desire to provide weather-related information resources for public safety and communicate directly with Alaska communities (NOAA 2017). Several advisory team members remarked on SIWO manager’s friendly and casual approach as a motivating factor for their continued participation despite other commitments. One advisory team member appreciated the manageable scale of the SIWO and a shared desire for the SIWO to continue among collaborators. Members of the SIWO partnership exhibited attitudes and intentions towards collaboration with Indigenous communities, which laid the foundation for providing effective information resources (I.8). Several advisory team members and local observers emphasized the importance of listening to communities and local observer partners about what is important, rather than approaching a project or partnership with preconceived ideas of what is useful or helpful. The project manager, partner coordinator, and advisory team members are committed to the SIWO and regard the SIWO as more than a job. One advisory team member shared hindsight into key components of an equitable local observer partnership that should be established prior to the start of a project, including securing funding for local observer stipends and agreeing upon pragmatic expectations of time commitments. Several advisory team members and local observers also discussed the importance of making engagements valuable to local observers by learning more about what motivates local observers to partner with scientists to share 15 information, as it enabled more frequent updates. SIWO observations of the rapidly changing sea-ice and wind conditions are consistent with other observations and research on these conditions in the Bering Sea region (Raymond-Yakoubian et al. 2014). Figure 6: Perceptions of concern for the accuracy of NWS information. Survey questions: “How concerned are you about the accuracy of scientific forecast information in the SIWO?” (n=33) The SIWO is accessed via multiple platforms (OC.3; Figure 7). Those who access the SIWO through Facebook accessed it more frequently than the ARCUS SIWO page and NWS SIWO page. Facebook users generally had the most weekly users (23%) compared to the ARCUS page (10%) and NWS page (17%). Nearly half of the participants access the ARCUS SIWO page monthly (47%). Many respondents access the NWS SIWO page bi-weekly (43%). 16 Figure 7: Frequency of SIWO access across different platforms. Survey question: “How often do you access the SIWO from the following platforms?” (n=30) Participants identified factors that limited the accessibility of the SIWO, including internet access, technical language, and time (OC.3; Figure 8). Technical language (“jargon”) was perceived as the greatest barrier impeding accessibility, with half of the questionnaire participants indicating that this factor was at least very challenging. Specific examples of jargon perceived as especially problematic were not identified. Limited internet connectivity and time were also considered factors that were very or extremely challenging for impacting access by 43% of respondents. A few interviewees suggested non-internet-based access options, like paper copies of the weekly outlook posted at local mercantiles, post offices, tribal offices, or school buildings, and radio or TV broadcasts could increase SIWO accessibility and use. Additional challenges identified in the interviews include lack of access to transportation to places where the SIWO might be available. 17 Figure 8: Factors affecting access to the SIWO. Survey question: “How much are the following factors a challenge to accessing the SIWO?” (n=30) Nearly all participants are interested in continued collaboration with the SIWO, as long as it continues to be useful (OC.6). Advisory team members discussed the rewarding nature of working with the SIWO and all local observers interviewed expressed interest in continuing to provide observations and feedback. One participant discussed the value of the SIWO in providing accessible insights into village and subsistence lifestyles. I think one of the great values of SIWO is to show the world the human face of what subsistence in the Bering Strait region means…I promote SIWO as an example of western science and Indigenous communities working together…I think that SIWO is a perfect vehicle for helping people in distant places who have no actual conception of what a mixed-cash-economy means. SIWO is one way to help them start to understand what it is and why it matters. (Interview 02) Participants from all groups felt that goal of the SIWO—to provide information about sea-ice, weather, and walruses in the Bering Strait for addressing needs of subsistence hunters in Alaskan Indigenous communities and others interested in sea-ice and walruses—as well as broader goals of NWS, EWC, and local observers are being achieved (OC.5). Overall, participants used the SIWO for general interest (49%), research (31%), policy-making (26%), management (26%), an information reference for hunting, fishing, or traveling (23%), and emergency services (17%) (Figure 9). These findings are consistent with previous reports that suggest users largely accessed the SIWO for general curiosity (AOOS 2013). Walrus hunters use the SIWO predominantly for general interest (57%), information reference making for hunting, fishing, or traveling (50%), policy-making (43%), and emergency services (43%). Participants feel that the SIWO is at least very helpful for understanding weather and sea-ice conditions relevant to walruses (59%), saving time by compiling information in one location (43%), 18 learning about walrus hunting from experiences shared by local observers (40%), and staying connected to subsistence activities in their home community (37%). Figure 9: Participant use of SIWO. Survey question: “To what extent has information in the SIWO been helpful for you in the following ways?” (n=35). Other notable outcomes related to supporting the goals of the SIWO included providing information for disaster claims and extreme events, building perspective for outsiders, and using SIWO to support regional communication (OC.5). Local observations from archived weekly SIWOs were used as evidence for several emergency disaster claims for the SIWO communities of the Native Villages of Diomede, Gambell, Savoonga, and Shishmaref, who were facing food shortages after seasons and years of low marine harvest numbers. In September 2022, the SIWO Facebook page shared timely NWS products to support planning and response efforts for Typhoon Merbok, including special weather statements, opportunistic social media posts, a satellite video of the storm over the Bering Sea, and a link to a live weather camera in Nome. Participants also provided suggestions to enhance SIWO’s goal to be a resource for coastal communities. Multiple interviewees suggested a synthesized report of archived local SIWO observations could be used as a resource for documenting local knowledge and change, and this in turn could be used in resource management, climate adaptation, planning, and as a resource for NWS staff to become more familiar with regional weather and sea-ice features. Beyond the initial goals of the SIWO, there were some unanticipated outcomes (OC.7). For example, several participants remarked on the impact partnering with the SIWO has had on their perspectives of what makes scientific information important and insights into village life. “SIWO has helped me be a better human being, and it’s helped me be a better science, weather, climate communicator because of the ability to link the western science with the things that are important to people” (Interview 02). 3.5 Contextual Factors 19 Contextual factors, including budget and time constraints, personnel turnover, and technological capacities (CF.1-3), conditioned several aspects of the effectiveness of the SIWO. Local observers had some time constraints in providing observations and attending meetings due to high priority commitments, such as seasonal hunting and fishing activities that serve a key role in cultural values, ways of knowing, and maintaining connection to the land, waters, and place (CF.1). Multiple participants commented on how SIWO operated on a “shoestring budget”, and increased funding would enable additional relationship building through in-person meetings. There was some turnover in local SIWO observers over time (CF.2), as local observers aged and passed away. In the event a SIWO local observer was unable to return, new local observers have been recruited by the SIWO project manager, partner coordinator, and other SIWO local observers. Participation from the NWS expanded to include forecasters at the Fairbanks Weather Forecasting Office, which is the office responsible for the Bering Strait weather forecasts, while forecasters at the sea-ice desk in Anchorage continued to provide seaice and marine forecasts for the SIWO. Due to the limited timing of availability of the SIWO during the spring and the nature of shiftwork at the NWS, the NWS Fairbanks office does not train all forecasters to produce SIWO forecasts and instead relies on a few forecasters for the tailored information each season. While the advisory team is informal and on a voluntary basis, many advisory team members remain committed to advising the SIWO and maintaining their relationships with other advisory team members, SIWO project manager and partner coordinator, and local observers. Some advisory team members discussed having to step back over time due to higher priority obligations. There were some challenges associated with remote forms of communication that impeded engagement efforts, especially for local observers (CF.3). For example, several interviewees noted that connectivity issues with video conferencing increased chances for missed social cues, which can limit relationship building and impede participants feeling comfortable and knowing when to interject in the conversation. These findings are consistent with the document analysis, which revealed internet connectivity as a significant barrier to information access and community engagement in the Bering Strait (n=14, 26%). Emerging efforts to increase broadband access across rural Alaska offers the potential to overcome some barriers to remote engagement and access to the SIWO (DeMarban 2022). Other contextual factors included COVID-19, which has delayed efforts to support in-person networking among SIWO partners and impeded travel to SIWO communities. 4. Preliminary recommendations to improve the SIWO. Several preliminary recommendations are provided below to improve the SIWO. 4.1 Geographic and Seasonal Scope ● Consider expanding the geographic coverage of the SIWO local observer network. This is desired to increase access to local observations, information, and resources for other communities that both rely on walruses and other marine mammals and share similar environmental concerns (e.g., storms and coastal erosion). Participants identified the following areas as candidates for expansion: Bering Sea coastal communities in the YukonKuskokwim Delta region, Elim, and Shaktoolik. ● Consider extending the seasonal scope of the SIWO. A longer season could include the periods of sea-ice formation, typically November and December. Information about ocean temperatures, currents, and winds during the formative months are useful for better 20 understanding sea-ice conditions during the spring season. Local observations and NWS forecasts would also be useful during the ice-free period; however, more detailed information is needed on what types of information are desired during the ice-free period. 4.2 Information Content ● Provide additional content in the weekly SIWO. Information about ocean currents and visibility are perceived as particularly valuable additions. There is a low level of interest in data from drones and one hunter expressed concerns about the invasive nature of this observation collection method. Integrating information from other local observer and scientific monitoring networks could also expand the types and frequency of environmental observations and provide a more holistic view of local observations. ● Reduce technical language in the SIWO. Although several efforts have been made to increase the accessibility of information, technical jargon remains a key issue impeding access. No specific terms were identified as problematic in the review. 4.3 Team Meetings ● Organize in-person meetings. Although the virtual preand post-season SIWO meets are important for facilitating engagement and feedback, additional in-person meetings are desired by local observers, SIWO project manager and partner coordinator, and advisory team members to further build relationships. One advisory team member suggested that the meeting occur semi-annually. ● Increase local observer participation in annual SIWO meetings. Although post-season meetings are structured to facilitate feedback and relationship building among all SIWO partners, there is limited participation from local observers. 4.4 Additional Outputs ● Synthesize SIWO local observations (2010-present). Synthesizing and documenting archived local observations provides further opportunities to expand the goal of the SIWO (OC.5) by providing a historical record of observed changes for future generations, informing community-level planning and management decisions, and increasing scientist and forecaster understanding of the region. Local information in locally useful forms also increase data sovereignty. ● Develop a report that synthesizes broader lessons learned. Insights and reflections could focus on bringing together science and Indigenous Knowledge to provide information resources for coastal communities across the Bering Strait region (OP.1). 4.5 Other Suggestions ● Increase observer weekly stipends. The current weekly stipend serves a critical role in compensating local observers for some of their knowledge and experience, time, and resources to make their observations. However, the current level of funding does not cover all local observer expenses (I.4). Two participants suggested considering doubling the current weekly stipend to provide adequate compensation for existing observations. ● Provide local observers with weather observation equipment to help users and scientists have access to more accurate localized weather information, especially for wind. This recommendation was provided by one local observer. 21 ● Explore non-internet options for expanding access. Broadcasting weekly outlooks over local radio or TV stations may increase access to the SIWO for individuals with limited internet availability. Posting printed copies of the SIWO at post offices, tribal offices, and local mercantiles could also increase accessibility, though the effectiveness of past efforts is mixed. ● Explore opportunities to expand the local participation with the SIWO. Two advisory team members suggested connecting with local search and rescue crews, who often also rely on similar environmental observations to inform search and rescue operations. Other participants suggested encouraging the invitation of women and youth to become involved in the SIWO. There may also be opportunities for existing local observers to offer insights into improving and bias correcting regional NWS products, where social media could be further utilized as a two-way communication tool between forecasters and local observers for more feedback on forecast products. 5. Challenges in reviewing the SIWO. There were some challenges in the SIWO review. First, limited telecommunication infrastructure and COVID-19 travel restrictions reduced opportunities for the evaluator to interact in-person with Bering Strait residents, SIWO users, members of the SIWO advisory team, and local SIWO observers (NSHC 2022). Face-to-face communication is an important component of building trusting relationships in Alaska Native communities and getting feedback (Cvitanovicet et al. 2021). Interviewees lamented that the evaluator did not have the opportunity to travel to the region and meet the people in person. Poor weather conditions also impeded communication with interviewees, including willing participants not being able to participate, and portions of audio recordings that were not audible, both due to weather and telecommunication infrastructure. Second, although several steps were taken to enhance opportunities for feedback from participants from multiple backgrounds, including a document analysis, questionnaires, and interviews, feedback from the interviews may be biased towards individuals who are more connected to SIWO efforts. People less connected directly to the SIWO may have different perceptions of its usability (Lemos et al. 2012). 6. Discussion and Conclusion. This report summarized a review of SIWO and outlined a preliminary set of recommendations to increase its usability and impact. We conclude by discussing insights for other emergent and existing programs interested in providing information and resources to support coastal resilience in Alaska rural and Indigenous communities Providing resources that are relevant to the information needs of residents in the Bering Strait is enhanced by using both Indigenous Knowledge and science. The review of the SIWO suggests that efforts to bring knowledge sources together are effective in providing information. This approach to providing information benefits from having the flexibility to respect cultural sensitivities associated with the Indigenous Knowledge and allows communities to maintain knowledge sovereignty and knowledge-holder recognition. Additional research is needed to further understand how individuals process both knowledge sources together, as this may provide further insights into how Indigenous Knowledge and science can be brought together for information resources. Local observations of weather and environmental-related conditions serve a key role in providing situational awareness in the Arctic, especially due to several operational and logistical challenges of providing site-specific weather and climate information. Beyond providing 22 information that can support rural communities, local observations have the potential to support NWS forecast products. Providing information services in rural Alaskan communities requires additional budget considerations. First, financial support for local observers extends beyond funding for local observer time and expertise, as observers have additional expenses that often include vehicle (boat, snowmachine) maintenance, fuel, data and internet costs, and observation equipment (e.g., cameras). Second, ongoing engagement activities serve a critical role in supporting ongoing relationship building and providing opportunities for feedback and learning. Our findings from the review of the SIWO are consistent with other research emphasizing the importance of inperson meetings in building familiarity and trust and supporting transparency (Elam Yua et al. 2022). Providing equitable funding for local observers to contribute to and participate in SIWO activities is consistent with recommendations for increasing justice (White House 2022; Elam Yua et al. 2022). Although social media provides an effective medium for community engagement and dissemination of information for some people in rural Alaska, internet access remains a significant challenge in developing and providing accessible information resources in rural Alaska. Although several strategies can mitigate internet challenges, such as compressing images, limiting video content, providing non-internet-based alternatives for access, and providing alternative teleconference access to video conferencing, these issues remain significant obstacles for equitable participation and engagement. Efforts to enhance equitability in access to information may be more effective when multiple options are provided that align with user capacities and constraints (e.g., internetand non-internet-based strategies). Leveraging existing networks and long-term relationships serves as a foundation for creating and providing effective resources to support coastal resilience in Alaska. A history of respectful collaboration among partners can help shape and drive programs that can withstand programmatic obstacles. Partners may feel they can be more candid and honest with people they have worked with in the past. Pre-existing networks and relationships can also make it easier to bring in additional partners who are already trusted. Evaluation provides an opportunity to understand the extent that projects are achieving their desired goals and develop sets of recommended changes that can be used as a basis for thinking strategically about programmatic changes. The review of the SIWO provided several user-generated recommendations to improve the process and outcomes and strengthen the program. Many of these recommendations extend beyond the SIWO, such as providing equitable compensation for local observer expertise and the time and resources it takes to provide observations, exploring non-internet options for expanding information access, and sharing broader lessons about supporting community needs through partnerships. Aligning programmatic reviews with funding cycles may be especially helpful in meeting local needs, especially to enable timely updates in response to dynamic community needs. 7. Acknowledgements. This research project was based at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Troth Yeddha’ Campus, which is located on the ancestral homelands of the Lower Tanana Dené People. The reviewers wish to thank the interviewees and questionnaire participants for their time and insightful feedback. The reviewers also thank Gay Sheffield for her thoughtful comments and feedback throughout the project. This research was supported by Alaska Sea Grant and the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy (NA16OAR4310162; NA21OAR4310314). 23 8. Credits. LSG, NK, VM, GS, OL, and DH conceptualized the project. NK and AH developed the evaluation methodology. AH and NK developed the questionnaire and interview protocol, with feedback from VM, GS, OL, and LSG. AH conducted the interviews and analyzed the data. AH led the writing of the report in collaboration with NK. LSG, OL, VM reviewed and edited the report. NK administered the project. NK, LSG, VM, GS, and OL secured funding for the project. 9. References. ARCUS, 2022a: Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook (SIWO). ARCUS. www.arcus.org/siwo (Accessed August 18, 2022). ARCUS, 2022b: Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. Mission. ARCUS. www.arcus.org/arcus (Accessed October 26, 2022). Buizer, J., K. Jacobs, and D. Cash, 2012: Making short-term climate forecasts useful: Linking science and action. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 113, 17, 4597-4602. Buzard, R.M., J. Chriest, J.R. Overbeck, K.L. Endres, and E.W. Plumb, 2021: Coastal Flood Impact Assessments for Alaska Communities. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys. 38p. Campbell, D., 2015: Alaska Native knowledge merges with modern research to help study Arctic. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, www.newsminer.com/features/sundays/community_features/alaska-native-knowledgemerges-with-modern-research-to-help-study/article_988ee610-1d29-11e5-83a3df5a7bd94d15.html (Accessed August 18, 2022). Cash, D.W., J.C. Borck, and A.G. Patt, 2006: Countering the loading-dock approach to linking science and decision making: comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems. Sci., Technol, & Hum. Val., 31, 4, 465-494. Cash, D.W., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger, and R.B. Mitchell, 2003: Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 100, 14, 8086-8091. Cash, D., W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, and J. Jäger, 2002: Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. Assessment and Decision Making, 24p. Cochran, P., O.H. Huntington, C. Pungowiyi, S. Tom, F. Chapin, H. Huntington, N. Maynard, and S. Trainor, 2013: Indigenous frameworks for observing and responding to climate change in Alaska. Clim. Change, 120, 557-567. Cvitanovic, C., R. Shellock, M. Mackay, E. van Putten, D. Karcher, M. Dickey-Collas, and M. Ballesteros, 2021: Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy. Env. Sci. Pol. 123, 179-189. DeMarban, A., 2022: Alaska Ramps up Effort to Land Billions in Federal Funding to Close Digital Divide. Anchorage Daily News, adn.com/business-economy/2022/08/09/alaskaramps-up-effort-to-land-billions-in-federal-funding-to-close-digital-divide/ (Accessed August 18, 2022). Dilling, L. and M.C. Lemos, 2011: Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glo. Environ. Change, 21, 2, 680-689. 24 Druckenmiller, M., H. Eicken, J. George, and L. Brower, 2013: Trails to the whale: reflections of change and choice on an Iñupiat icescape at Barrow, Alaska. Polar Geography, 36, 5-29. Dube, T., P. Moyo, S. Ndlovu, and K. Phiri, 2016: Towards a framework for the integration of traditional ecological knowledge and meteorological science in seasonal climate forecasting: The case of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. J. Hum. Ecol., 54, 49–58. Elam Yua, E., J. Raymond-Yakoubian, R.A. Daniel, and C. Behe, 2022: A framework for coproduction of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecol. and Soc., 27, 1, 24p. Eicken, H., M. Kaufman, I. Krupnik, P. Pulsifer, L. Apangalook, P. Apangalook, W. Weyapuk, and J. Leavitt, 2014: A framework and database for community sea ice observations in a changing arctic: An Alaskan prototype for multiple users. Polar Geog., 37, 5-27. Eicken, H. and A.R. Mahoney, 2015: Sea ice: Hazards, risks, and implications for disasters. Coastal and marine hazards, risks, and disasters. J. Shroder, J. Ellis, and D. Sherman, Eds., Elsevier, 381-401. EWC, 2010: Survey on the Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook. Eskimo Walrus Commission, Kawerak, Inc., 3p. Facebook, 2022a: Sea ice for walrus outlook. Facebook, www.facebook.com/seaiceforwalrus (Accessed August 18, 2022). Facebook, 2022b: Seward Peninsula/Bering Strait Weather and Climate Info. Facebook, /www.facebook.com/groups/631657950559392 (Accessed Oct. 6, 2022). Fidel, M., A. Kliskey, L. Alessa, and O. Sutton, 2014: Walrus harvest locations reflect adaptation: A contribution from a community-based observation network in the Bering Sea. Polar Geography, 37, 1, 48-68. Gerlak, A., Z. Guido, C. Vaughan, V. Rountree, C. Greene, D. Liverman, A. Trotman, R. Mahon, S. Cox, S. Mason, and K. Jacobs, 2018: Building a framework for process-oriented evaluation of regional climate outlook forums. Wea., Climate, Soc. 10, 2, 225-239. Heim, R. and M.B. Schreck, 2016: NWS Alaska Sea Ice Program: operations, customer support & challenges. Amer. Geophys. Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA, C21A-0652. Hendricks, A., N. Kettle, L. Sheffield-Guy, O. Lee, V. Metcalf, G. Sheffield, and D. Holen, 2022: Reviewing the Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook to Increase Resilience in Coastal Alaska: Questionnaire results. International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, 5p. https://uaf-accap.org/projects/siwo/ Hudson, H.E., V. Hanna, A. Hill, K. Parker, S. Sharp, K. Spiers, and K. Wark, 2012: Toward universal broadband in rural Alaska. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. 70p. ICC, 2015: Alaskan Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework: How to assess the Arctic from an Inuit Perspective. Inuit Circumpolar Council-Alaska, Anchorage, AK, 126p. IPY, 2012: Lessons and legacies of the International Polar Year 2007-2008. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.,152p. Kalafatis, S., J. Neosh, J. Libarkin, K. Whyte, and C. Caldwell, 2019: Experiential learning processes informing climate change decision support. Wea. Climate Soc., 11, 3, 681-694. Kettle, N., 2019: Knowledge co-production in contested spaces. Arctic, 72, 1, 43-57. Kettle, N., J. Martin, and M. Sloan, 2017: Climate adaptation plan for the Nome-based tribes. Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy, Fairbanks, AK, 32p. Kinnard, C., C. M. Zdanowicz, R. M. Koerner, and D. A. Fisher, 2008: A changing Arctic seasonal ice zone: observations from 1870-2003 and possible oceanographic consequences. J. Geophys. Res., 35, 5p. 31 Rosen, Y., 2019: Chukchi Sea walruses are massing on shore earlier than ever. Arctic Today, www.arctictoday.com/chukchi-sea-walruses-are-massing-on-shore-earlier-than-ever/ Sheffield Guy, L., 2017: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook Expanded for 2017 Spring Season. ARCUS, www.arcus.org/witness-the-arctic/2017/1/article/27220 Sheffield Guy, L., 2021: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook 2021: Alaska Native sea ice experts share their observations of spring in the Bering Sea. ARCUS, arcus.org/witness-thearctic/2021/1/article/32187 SIWO, 2017: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook 2017 Season Summary. ARCUS, www.arcus.org/siwo/resources SIWO, 2018: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook 2018 Season Summary. ARCUS, www.arcus.org/siwo/resources SIWO, 2019: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook 2019 Season Summary. ARCUS, www.arcus.org/siwo/resources SIWO, 2020: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook 2020 Season Summary. ARCUS, www.arcus.org/siwo/resources SIWO, 2021: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook 2021 Season Summary. ARCUS, www.arcus.org/siwo/resources Stone, M., 2017: Why Climate Scientists Depend on Alaska’s Indigenous Communities Now More Than Ever. Gizmodo, https://gizmodo.com/why-climate-scientists-depend-on-alaskas-indigenous-co-1798335127 Thoman, R., R. Heim, and G. Petrescu, 2018: Polar Forecasts Against Impacts of Declining Bering Sea Ice on Alaska Coastal Communities – Part 1. Helmholtz Blogs, https://blogs.helmholtz.de/polarpredictionmatters/2018/07/polar-forecasts-against-impactsof-declining-bering-sea-ice-on-alaska-coastal-communities-part-1/ A.5 Webinars and recordings (n = 6) Brewster, K., 2018: Sea Ice Project Jukebox: Hajo Eicken - Part 1. UAF Project Jukebox, https://jukebox.uaf.edu/interviews/3001 Hovey, D., 2018: NWS: Sea Ice Lows in Alaska Made This Winter ‘Unprecedented’. KNOM, www.knom.org/wp/blog/2018/04/05/nws-sea-ice-lows-in-alaska-made-this-winterunprecedented/#comment-10547 Metcalf, V., 2017: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook: Community Identified Needs and Tools to Address Them. IARPC Collaborations, www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC2tsa6a1Mc&t=16s Sheffield Guy, L., 2017: Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook (SIWO) update. IARPC Collaborations, www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tYdQid82qI&t=1s Sheffield Guy, L., 2018: Alaska Arctic Observatory and Knowledge Hub, Sea Ice for Walrus, SEARCH Sea Ice Action Team. IARPC Collaborations, youtube.com/watch?v=vt2P1IpfI68 Sheffield Guy, L., 2021: Community and Citizen Science in the Far North Conference Day 3. ARCUS, www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBpvp_Cgn00